3 ms·

It probably doesn't hurt much to start building a couple of nuclear plants and to keep existing ones running a while longer. But it's pretty clear that renewabl

It probably doesn't hurt much to start building a couple of nuclear plants and to keep existing ones running a while longer. But it's pretty clear that renewables and storage have won and we should put most of our money behind them.

crobertsbmw 5y ago
Really? That’s not clear to me at all yet.
- adrianN 5y ago
  They are almost competitive on electricity price and much less riksy to build, because they're not some double digit billion dollar project that finishes in fifteen years. Those seem like pretty strong arguments to me. Why do you think otherwise?
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    I think it's because solar/wind and battery grid storage haven't reached a scale where their limitations are fully priced in yet. It's certainly clear that we want to have the highest proportion of solar/wind possible. What's not clear is how to distribute variability handling between grid-scale storage, nuclear/hydro, and long distance interconnects.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      When prices truly reflect the effects of large amounts of renewables on the grid, nuclear will be screwed. That's because prices will usually be very low (or even negative), and occasionally spike. This is an environment that is quite hostile to expensive baseload sources. Fossil fuels would beat nuclear for exploiting those spikes, even with insanely high CO2 taxes ($1000/ton, say).
      - icegreentea2 5y ago
        My gut feel is that we'll end up with regulations putting a cap on retail (maybe not for industrial...) price variability and/or inserting in an extra fixed fee (similar to connection fees) in many jurisdictions to help out with keeping baseload around. I haven't done any of the math though. Like I want nuclear to just be cheaper than FF. But shrug.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        For decades I was pointing to nuclear as a way out of fossil fuels. But I always added "or renewables if they get cheap enough, which they could if their experience curves keep holding when scaled to global energy demand". And eventually, the renewables did get cheaper. It would have been nice to have CO2 taxes decades ago for an earlier transition away from fossil fuels, but that's water under the bridge. There's no need to stay loyal to nuclear just because one once supported it. It's a technology, not a girlfriend.
  - jules 5y ago
    What is the cost of storage you used in that comparison? I remember calculating at some point that having enough battery storage to support my electricity needs for 1 day, costs about the same as the total of electricity I will use in 10 years. And this was with favourable numbers, and only accounts for electricity and not other forms of energy use.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Most countries are very far away from the percentages of renewable penetration that would require storage, so for the next couple of years at least those numbers don't matter very much.
knuthsat 5y ago
AFAIK renewables from physical standpoint do not cut it when it comes to our ever increasing energy needs. Needs too much surface area for solar. Wind just seems unreliable. Solar is as magical as nuclear plants are. It’s really sad that nuclear plants take so long to build.
- adrianN 5y ago
  According to my calculations and the studies I've read, it would be enough to cover some single digit percentages of Germany with solar panels to meet its energy (not electricity!) demand. Certainly less than 5% of the land. You get most of the way there just by using the agricultural area currently in use for "energy crops" (corn for ethanol, canola for diesel, etc, 2.4 million hectares in Germany). Germany is not terribly well suited for solar either. Wind is a bit better from a kWh/m^2 point of view.
elzbardico 5y ago
No. It is not, not even close to truth. Storage is still mind-boggling expensive. Whoever suggests otherwise, has drunk the industry cool-aid. We need nuclear, for the foreseable future. Period.

crobertsbmw 5y ago

Really? That’s not clear to me at all yet.

adrianN 5y ago
They are almost competitive on electricity price and much less riksy to build, because they're not some double digit billion dollar project that finishes in fifteen years. Those seem like pretty strong arguments to me. Why do you think otherwise?
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  I think it's because solar/wind and battery grid storage haven't reached a scale where their limitations are fully priced in yet. It's certainly clear that we want to have the highest proportion of solar/wind possible. What's not clear is how to distribute variability handling between grid-scale storage, nuclear/hydro, and long distance interconnects.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    When prices truly reflect the effects of large amounts of renewables on the grid, nuclear will be screwed. That's because prices will usually be very low (or even negative), and occasionally spike. This is an environment that is quite hostile to expensive baseload sources. Fossil fuels would beat nuclear for exploiting those spikes, even with insanely high CO2 taxes ($1000/ton, say).
    - icegreentea2 5y ago
      My gut feel is that we'll end up with regulations putting a cap on retail (maybe not for industrial...) price variability and/or inserting in an extra fixed fee (similar to connection fees) in many jurisdictions to help out with keeping baseload around. I haven't done any of the math though. Like I want nuclear to just be cheaper than FF. But shrug.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        For decades I was pointing to nuclear as a way out of fossil fuels. But I always added "or renewables if they get cheap enough, which they could if their experience curves keep holding when scaled to global energy demand". And eventually, the renewables did get cheaper. It would have been nice to have CO2 taxes decades ago for an earlier transition away from fossil fuels, but that's water under the bridge. There's no need to stay loyal to nuclear just because one once supported it. It's a technology, not a girlfriend.
- jules 5y ago
  What is the cost of storage you used in that comparison? I remember calculating at some point that having enough battery storage to support my electricity needs for 1 day, costs about the same as the total of electricity I will use in 10 years. And this was with favourable numbers, and only accounts for electricity and not other forms of energy use.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Most countries are very far away from the percentages of renewable penetration that would require storage, so for the next couple of years at least those numbers don't matter very much.

knuthsat 5y ago

AFAIK renewables from physical standpoint do not cut it when it comes to our ever increasing energy needs. Needs too much surface area for solar. Wind just seems unreliable. Solar is as magical as nuclear plants are. It’s really sad that nuclear plants take so long to build.

adrianN 5y ago
According to my calculations and the studies I've read, it would be enough to cover some single digit percentages of Germany with solar panels to meet its energy (not electricity!) demand. Certainly less than 5% of the land. You get most of the way there just by using the agricultural area currently in use for "energy crops" (corn for ethanol, canola for diesel, etc, 2.4 million hectares in Germany). Germany is not terribly well suited for solar either. Wind is a bit better from a kWh/m^2 point of view.

elzbardico 5y ago

No. It is not, not even close to truth. Storage is still mind-boggling expensive. Whoever suggests otherwise, has drunk the industry cool-aid. We need nuclear, for the foreseable future. Period.